Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 21, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT

2:30 pm
impact. the code advisory committee actually made a suggestion that we say only student housing can qualify for this. but we've been told it would be illegal in terms of distinguishing among different groups and their housing. so that's why we moved forward as we did. supervisor mar: and then it looks to me like at least this option would be four units with one person and no more than two persons living in this roughly 10 by 15-foot space but that there's at least a limit on the number of people that would live there. supvervisor wiener: yes. if you go down to 150 square feet, only up to two people at the most can live there. i want to really stress 150 square feet son-in-law living area. it doesn't include cooking area, bathroom, closet. those areas. and that total would still have to be 220 square feet. right now, the code requires 220 square feet plus kitchen and other areas.
2:31 pm
supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? >> the department of -- supervisor mar: is there a presentation -- >> i don't think d.b.i. is here. but i will state the building inspection commission unanimously supported this. supervisor mar: we have a number of speaker cards. supvervisor wiener: i have two speaker cards here. dan fraten and igen and francisco. two minutes per speaker, mr. chairman. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm dan fraten. i'm here today as a member of the housing action coalition to speak in support of what i believe is a very good piece of legislation. this proposal is at the intersection of two things that
2:32 pm
the haq has been working on for a long time and that's promotion of housing that is affordable by design as wall as student housing. there's a shortage of about 40,000 beds of student housing. i think it's fairly obvious that small units are a very good fit for students who are going to be living in them temporarily. it's kind of like your traditional dormitory setting. we think that making this change will help bring student housing to market in san francisco. to be clear the change that is made by this legislation is a simple one. it's to reduce the living area to 150 square feet. that is exclusive of bathroom, kitchen closets that are separate. seattle did this and in seattle, there's a company that's built, i believe, 11 projects for
2:33 pm
tchash contain mostly small units. it's interesting those units rent for one third the price of the average apartment rental in seattle and they have a 1% vacancy rate. if you give them a choice between living in a small unit, somewhere they want to a bigger somewhere they don't, it's fairly easy choice. i think in a city like san francisco where you have very high prices, that there will be a tremendous benefit to giving people the choice to live in small units in centrally located neighborhoods. that's what this does and i encourage you to support it. thank you. supervisor mar: can i just ask mr. fraten, i'm thinking about the space at a hotel in chinatown or mission. and seeing families kind of in a small space unless there's really good infrastructure for parks or other places for them to get out, it seems like allowing developers to create
2:34 pm
smaller units is taking away kind of a quality of life from people. i'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on those concerns, that this is kind of not making people have a better quality of life but potentially milwaukeing it worse, unless we're really building more parks and better amenities for people in smaller, cramped living conditions. >> so i guess i would say a couple of things in response. one is that these are not s.r.o. units. your typical s.r.o. units -- on i'm not an expert but i think there are probably others in the audience who can speak of this, are much smaller than 150 square feet. they're often something in the range of 75 to 100 without any of these separate amenities. you know, the other thing i would point out is most of the projects have been built with smaller unit sizes and there are a couple. the plaza apartments at sixth and howard, that's a very nice
2:35 pm
development project. it's housing for formally homeless. there are on generous interior spaces where residents have bigger common areas then we have in comparable developments with larger units, places where they can watch tv and access social services and so on. so undoubtedly if you just -- i guess crammed people into small units and didn't provide any -- any additional amenities at all, that could be a problem. but that is not what we have seen come to market in san francisco. nm that's very -- supervisor mar: that's very helpful. thank you. >> supervisors, ken fujikoia. we actually just heard about this legislation today and i appreciate the supervisor's description.
2:36 pm
we think it's actually a very interesting idea. we support the idea of affordability by design. i think that the concept seems great. we would like to support it. i think we have some questions and we're hoping that we -- there will be a process or time to consider it. perhaps coinciding with the student housing legislation, which i was here just last week generally supporting the he supervisor's proposal before the planning commission. seems there's close alignment i think the previous speaker noted there would be demands for amenities and you think -- i think this density is the kind of thin -- the planning code estimates density when planning projects based upon minimum unit size. this will substantially change the calculation for and the question is what will be the impact on transit, community resources, open space and and so on if this succeeds and takes off?
2:37 pm
it could be a great idea. we're wondering if there could be more time to contemplate how these factors -- how this fits together not from a building code standard but from a standpoint fwut from a planning standpoint. i think, again, the general notion seems right headed. the question is does this fit within the context of existing planning for neighborhoods and kind of density that we're building into existing plans. currently our plans do not anticipate new construction providing this level of compactness. and so given that we're the same time on the planning side loosening up development to allow for density on -- and discretionary developments develop up on density, the question will be the consequence of that. if we had more time, it would be great for us in the community to take a look at it and be able to support the legislation. thank you.
2:38 pm
>> the two minutes given to me, have i been following this for a long time, 40 years. first and foremost, i see the erosion of quality of life issues. secondly, i see very clearly that two supervisors who are favoring student housing now do not favor families. they do not favor families. now, we have the budget analysts. we have the controller's office. we need to find out how many of our rental units were compromised by the academy of art university. and if they compromised thousands of units, they must be fined and the millions of dollars from those fines can be
2:39 pm
accrued and used for quality of life issues and affordable housing. we should not go, we should not take this route. using a fancy name, design units or whatever to favor i would say mostly a single type of operation. or students. where certain type of developers, certain institutions fleece the students, as does the academy of arts university. and then we have the audacity of one supervisor trying to zero in on s.r.o.'s. where are you supervisors coming from? where are you coming from? for the last 40 years we have been fighting for quality of life issues. where are the blasted
2:40 pm
supervisors coming from? thank you very much. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> i'm sorry, i don't have a card. i will call you anyone. and here orby -- >> he put in a card so he gets to go first. sue esther. we had a hearing last week on student housing. it was very well attended. it was a planning commission hearing. there's a huge difference between who gets notices of building commission meetings and people who get notice of planning commission meetings. very few community people followed 3wil8ding commission because it deals mostly with esoteric issues. i really think that this should be continued until you have the student housing legislation back before you. as well as for input for the planning department. there are three studies that are going on right now at the planning commission. that would benefit for the
2:41 pm
planning department input on this legislation that's a central corridor study, which is slated to come before the commission as information item in i believe two weeks. it's moving fast. the western e.i.r. comes out in a month. both of those are the areas that you are going to have these projects to be in. and if the planning department doesn't factor in unit size and density into those studies, they're going to have to do them over. i would really urge planning department input because they're the ones in the real world that process the projects, not the building department. i think it would help us all to have a better understanding of how this fits in the student housing and i agree it's more than student housing, supervisor wiener. i don't dispute you at all on that. the density issue will be a factor in the south of market on both western plan and central
2:42 pm
corridor study because that's where exactly these units will go. i don't think the planning department has it on their radar. and so it would be appropriate to put this in when they continued hearing on the student housing comes because i think it would be valuable for the public and commission and planning department staff as well as supervisors. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i don't think i'm too opposed to the size reduction for certain cases. a number of questions. first of all, as speaker mentioned about student housing, this fits right into it. the concern i have is that the student housing ordinance,
2:43 pm
proposed ordinance, has prohibitions of converting residential housing to student housing, which is i think really one of the most important things about that. i'm afraid that this might possibly encourage or provide incentives for universities to own a house and not convert it too student housing but to convert the units within the housing of residential units to much smaller residential units. and that would take away family housing or more -- housing that many people might be able to use . and as far as shortage of beds, 40,000-bed shortage by the students. well, i wonder how many thousands of bed shortages for regular residents? workers, young adults, whatever. i'm sure that their needs are equally as important, if not
2:44 pm
more. and at the d.p.i. hearing there was a person who had a drawing of these units. can it be possible to have -- be provided copies or access to those just so see what it looks like? and anyway, my concern is that this might encourage people to convert the residential units to smaller residential units and it would take away from the normal resident housing, to favor student housing. supervisor mar: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohen with council community housing organizations. i have to admit we know very
2:45 pm
little about the specifics of this legislation. so i'm just kind of coming up to speed. but i guess my question would be understanding all of the policy implications supervisor wiener. i'm curious about other than the student housing, which i have heard there are plenty. this has a very direct relevance to, are there other kinds of situations where this is going to become a major factor? and what -- has that's been thought all the way through as the staff that's put this together? this didn't come to the planning commission so i don't know what kind of larger policy context this may have been discussed in at the building inspection commission. but two quick things come to my mind. if you have answers for this, it would be helpful. i was just maybe digesting this more. one is how would this apply potentially to inclusionarry units if there's a situation where a project trip inclusionarry units. are we also then applying this very small size efficiency
2:46 pm
standard to the d.m.r.'s themselves and maybe that's an easy answer or maybe it's something we need to think through. the other is it makes me feel of the market ray s.r.o. movement that happened some years ago. and it raised a lot of questions about the target markets for s.r.o.'s if they were really very low income residents or whether they were market rate and whether the kind of standards built into the planning code were adequate or really relevant in both of those cases. it kind of led to something that seemed to be fairly minor to kind of a ripple of conversation. so again, i ask these as questions. i they we want to just know how this fits and type of housing we work on but just general in-housing policy. i bring that to you. with, again, a sense of i would like to get an idea of how this fits into the bigger conversation about student housing otherwise. thanks. supervisor mar: are there any additional members of the public who would like to comment?
2:47 pm
>> good afternoon, tesswell bourne again. not having studied this, i have a question f. we have a number of smaller units, do we have then have a requirement that the facility, larger buildings, have larger common areas? it seems if we want to have the quality of life, we have to stay that building that has x number of these efficiency units should have x amount of common area, maybe per unit or something like that. but that's a first reaction. thank you. supervisor mar: are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, mr. chairman, we close public comment. supervisor mar: yes. supvervisor wiener: public comment is closed. thank you and thank you to everyone who came out. i understand that there are some people who in the city who are not necessarily in favor of
2:48 pm
production of housing and have concerns about density. and, of course, one of the major factors in san francisco in terms of why it is so expensive to live here is we don't really produce much housing. when we produce it, we produce housing that is extremely expensive. francisco in san francisco about affordability by design, about designing housing in a way to make it more affordable. be but we also need to actually follow through on those housing policies and this is one of those things. if this were a situation where we were -- san francisco were blazing the trail and doing something that had never been tried before, maybe this would be one thing but this is -- this is the minimum in the state of california code, including the vast swaths of the state that are much less dense and urban
2:49 pm
and expensive than san francisco. this is a standard in, as i mentioned, in san jose, in numerous other cities. it's a standard in seattle. it's a standard in new york city. other cities that are coping with very expensive housing. so this is not some sort of brand-new kind of idea that's never been tried anywhere before. this is something that is actually quite present in our state and in our country. i do want to just offer the amendment that i mentioned before in terms of which had been requested by the building inspection, department of building inspection code advisory committee to stipulate that in addition to the 150 square foot minimum for the living area, that the minimum total including cooking area, kitchen, bathroom, closet, would be 220.
2:50 pm
so that would be number five. and it would read, the total area of the unit shall be no less than 220 square feet. which area shall be measured from the inside perimeter of the expeer yor walls of the unit and shall include closets, bathroom, kitchen, living and sleeping areas. so i would offer that amendment and it's not a substantive amendment. it doesn't require a continuance. but given -- given i am making the amendment, i would ask we continue it two weeks to june 4th, which is our next meeting. so it's a motion to amend and then to continue to two weeks to the juge 4th land use meeting. do we have cpmc that day or is that 8 washington? >> supervisor mar: we don't have cpmc -- supvervisor wiener: we do have 8 washington that day. supervisor mar: that's going to be a big one. let me try to work with my
2:51 pm
staff. sps i would like to continue it to -- supvervisor wiener: i would like to continue it to a date certain. supervisor mar: some people in the office said there are some that are similar to student housing. i wonder if we can continue this to the 23rd -- supvervisor wiener: the chair scheduled student housing for july 23rd. supervisor mar: ok. so we will do our best to schedule this to the soon as possible date but it still would allow people some time to have more input as withle. two weeks was your request? let me make sure. supvervisor wiener: my motion is to make that amendment, and then to continue it two weeks to june 4th. supervisor mar: i'm not sure yet with have an ability to schedule it on that day because i don't have the -- the -- what else besides 8 washington. but my hope is we can schedule it. i'm wondering if we can continue this toe call of chair with the assumption i'm going to schedule this as quickly as possible on
2:52 pm
that day if possible or the next possible date if possible. supvervisor wiener: ok. why don't we do this, i will continue it to june 4th and then if the chair thinks it's going to be a problem, perhaps we can address it at that time. i just -- this is this legislation has actually been around for quite some time. it's actually a surprising to me some of the people who monitor all agendas and introduce legislation in this building like a hawk would come in and here and say they were somehow unaware of it. so i -- i think that -- i think a two-week continuance would be appropriate. supervisor mar: let me think about it. today is the 21. so two weeks would be monday, june 4. so i think i'm ok with the motion. and if for some reason it can't be scheduled on that date, we
2:53 pm
will work out the next possible date. supervisor cohen: i want to communicate to the chair and public i'm actually prepared to vote on it and willing to take up the issue now. a lot of my questions have been answered and i'm feeling comfortable. so i don't know if that would necessarily make a difference in the conversation about continuing it, but that's where i stand. supvervisor wiener: why don't we first do the amendment. supervisor mar: let's take the amendment and have more discussion. so it we take the amendment without objection, colleagues? thanks. i think it's a good compromise to have two weeks to get a little more input, especially on the policy implications as people raised. i think the infrastructure around kind of where some of these units would be built is really important. i really appreciate this because i know supervisor wiener and i worked through long meetings with the regional housing needs assessment kind of on the regional level and building more housing and having more flexibility to do it and this way makes a lot of sense in
2:54 pm
meeting our goals like san jose and other cities are grappling with as well. so i'm supportive of continuing this to give a little more community input and to allow the different housing groups to at least have some ability to look at it and to give some input as well. so i'm support of continuing for two weeks to june 4th. supervisor wiener, would you like it state the motion. supvervisor wiener: the motion is to continue this to june 4th. supervisor mar: can we do this without objection? supvervisor wiener: i will revise the motion, to continue it to june 4th as the first item on the agenda. and if that will prove to be a problem, then we can talk about readjusting that. supervisor mar: i don't have the agenda in front of me but you're saying that 8 washington is on that agenda so, yes, it sounds like this would be a good to have as first item on the agenda so it doesn't get buried by a much larger item. can we take that without objection, colleagues? great. thank you. miss miller, thank you, everyone. miss miller, could you please
2:55 pm
call the next item? >> tim number three, hearing considering the office of economic and workforce develop nment controller's office of economic strategy update phase one findings. supervisor mar: thank you. at the urging of todd rufo and jennifer metz from the office economic development and chief economist ted eakin and controller ben rosenfield, we're holding this hearing on the san francisco economic strategy i know they're going to give us the update of several more pieces as we engage the community and promote san francisco's kind of economic future. >> thank you so much, supervisors. todd rufo in the office of economic and workforce development. we're here today in what we hope will be a series of briefings on the update of the economic strategy and before this committee. as you know proposition i requires the office of economic workforce development and office of economic analysis to prepare a long-term economic strategy for the city. as well as provide periodic updates to the economic
2:56 pm
strategy. today we're here to brief you on our progress and completion of the first phase of our work as well as get thoughts, feedback, answer questions and thought to you a little bit about what next steps are following this hearing. so it's a two-phase process which we teamed up with o.e.a. on. today ted egan will walk you through phase one, which we just recently completed. phase one is data driven analysis formed by o.e.a. that looks at workforce, key competitiveness factor as well as compared to other cities in the region. phase two, which we will talk about a little bit later following ted's presentation, we will use the data and findings of the first phase as a foundation to update strategies and recommend into action as part of the economic strategy. i will let ted go and walk through the presentation and i will be back up to discuss phase two and next steps after your questions on phase one findings. ted egan.
2:57 pm
>> good of why noon, supervisors, ted egan, controller's office of economic analysis. i have a presentation to share with you. if we can bring it up. thank you. todd's gone with you the background around the economic development plan. and our assistance with o.e.d. on it. i'm going to start by reviewing how the san francisco economy performed, sort of taking long view backwards over several decades. then we will take a look at the detailed analysis of the composition of the san francisco economy and how different segments of the economy are performing. the different level of performance of growth of different segments of the economy has implications for the types of jobs that are hosted here and this has implications for ultimately demographics of the city itself. now i will be covering that in a later section. finally i think one of the key things of the work we have done is there's a significant difference between the economic outcomes we have seen in other areas of the bay area or in the bay area as a whole and what we
2:58 pm
have seen in the city of san francisco. for that reason it makes sense to look at factor that's affect business izz and business -- businesses and business investment and growth decisions that are different in san francisco versus the rest of the region. in many ways a business in san francisco and business in say the city of oakland face many of the same issues. pretty much the same labor market. pretty much the same state regulatory system. many other similarities but there are also several local policy factors that i think go to some way to explain some of the difference in economic performance that we have seen across places. this is a chart that shows very simply total employment in san francisco. and also san francisco share of bay area employment over the past 40 years, going forward to 2009. i apologize, it's doifl read on the television. i think the story is fairly clear. the blue line is employment. what it really shows is we had a
2:59 pm
pique of employment of the last business cycle 20608 and that was actually fewer jobs than we had in our pique of the business cycle in 19891. for nearly 30 years the city essentially grew but for the dotcom boom, which was an an anonymous amount of job growth for the city has seen relatively little job growth of all. in the context of the bay area, which is a rapidly growing economic region for most of that time, san francisco has lost its share of the bay area job market. which was formally upwards of -- 25% and is now less than 20%. though it started to track up during the recession when we did better than some other places. so that's one example of a fairly stark contrast between a growing outer ring if you like of the bay area and fairly stagnant core of san francisco. you may think the main reason for this is so much housing and popula o